EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION
Vicarious liability
Post employment
The Appellants were members of the board of a Centre. As a result of decisions of the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, it was held that the Appellants had unfairly dismissed the Respondents, who were employees of the Centre and that they had unfairly discriminated against them on the grounds of their faith.
At a remedies hearing, it was held that the Appellants and the Centre were jointly and severally liable for the discrimination damages payable to the Respondents and that those damages could also take account of the post-employment conduct of the Appellants.
The Appellants appealed.
Held: dismissing the appeal because:
(a) the Appellants were agents of the Centre within Regulations 22 and 23 of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 as they were acting within their authority when managing the Centre and the regulations had to be construed in a purposive manner (Jones v Tower Boot [1997] ICR 254 followed) and all that needed to be shown to make the Appellants liable was that they were authorised to manage the centre in a way which was capable of being done in a lawful manner (Lana v Positive Action Training Housing (London) [2001] IRLR 501 applied). On that basis, the Employment Tribunal was entitled to find the Appellants liable under those regulations;
(b) The Appellants were jointly and severally liable as they contributed to the same damage to the Respondents (London Borough of Hackney v Savandam and others [UKEAT/0075/10], BAILII: [2011] UKEAT 0075 – 10 – 2705 applied and Way v Crouch [2005] IRLR 603 disapproved); and
(c) The aggravated damages could take account of the post-employment conduct of the Appellants (Zaiwalla v Walia [2002] IRLR 697 applied).
Silber J
[2011] UKEAT 0331 – 10 – 2709
Bailii
Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 22 23
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Tower Boot Company Limited v Jones CA 11-Dec-1996
An employer’s liability for racial abuse by its employees is wider than its liability under the rules of vicarious liability. The statute created new obligations. Sex and race discrimination legislation seeks to eradicate the ‘very great evil’ of . .
Cited – Lana v Positive Action Training In Housing (London) Ltd EAT 15-Mar-2001
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct . .
Cited – London Borough of Hackney v Sivanandan and Others EAT 27-May-2011
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Compensation
SEX DISCRIMINATION – Compensation
APPEAL
Council and a charity both supplied members to a recruitment panel which victimised the Claimant – Tribunal makes . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.444685